Fin Fang Foom On The Libelous Jack Ryan Review

[LustinGuy]

I don't believe Jack. Whether the review is true or not, he is still BAD NEWS. When I hired him, I was as disgusted by his appearance as the reviewer and when I told him it wasn't going to work for me he threatened my person and my property and refused to leave, demanding a greater cancellation fee. I'm personally convinced (just my impression) that Jack has either a drug or psychological problem that prevents him from dealing with this his actions responsibly.

[OneFinger]

I find the review "suspicious" since it was from a first-time reviewer. But I certainly DON'T fault HooBoy for posting it providing he phone verified IAW his stated policy. In addition, Jack Ryan had previously told HooBoy he wouldn't respond to any more negative reviews.

 

While I did find Jack's response rather long, he has certainly challenged the reviewer and provided some potential proof that the meeting never happened. If the reviewer really feels Jack stole the watch then he should take him up on the offer to meet one-on-one with the police. This is really a serious allegation that obviously can't be solved in this forum.

 

In short, I think HooBoy handled things properly by posting the review, Jack's response (obviously unedited), and Jack's previous e-mail. In my book, that's all the info I need to know.

[woodlawn]

>If the reviewer really feels Jack

>stole the watch then he should take him up on the offer to

>meet one-on-one with the police.

 

This idea strikes me as pretty humorous. If the two of them go to the police, what are they going to tell the police they were doing that required the reviewer to remove his watch?

 

Your local police department is not Judge Judy. It isn't the function of the police to resolve disputes. If the reviewer wants to file a complaint about the theft of his watch -- keeping in mind that he will have to explain the circumstances under which he claims it disappeared -- the police will investigate, a process that will probably include speaking to the escort, and then decide whether they think an arrest should be made.

 

 

>In short, I think HooBoy handled things properly by posting

>the review, Jack's response (obviously unedited), and Jack's

>previous e-mail. In my book, that's all the info I need to

>know.

 

Agreed.

[OneFinger]

>This idea strikes me as pretty humorous. If the two of them go to the police, what are they going to tell the police they were doing that required the reviewer to remove his watch?

 

I also thought the police idea was rather unpractical since both would have to admit to breaking at least one other law. But, IMHO, I don't know any other way to resolve the accusation.

 

If I had a $K watch stolen by an escort, I'd certainly go to the police. But, I'm not sure many DAs would prosecute without some pretty hard evidence. Not sure the client has adequate proof that to support his claim. This is really a very sad "he said - he said" situation.

[LovesYng]

He could have saved his DNA from the condom as proof of Jack having been there, depends on who the top was. Plus check the bed for body hairs, more DNA samples }(

 

When in doubt I whip it out :+

[BuckyXTC]

FFF always loves to show his outrage here with either an escort or a review, especially if it gives him the opportunity to "stir the shit" in his persona as "drama queen in residence". All the better if it gives him an excuse to take a potshot at Hooboy.

 

Let's take a second, and closer look at the reviews of Jack Ryan. I will certainly grant that the latest review (#12) comes from a first time reviewer and as such, is more subject to question. If one chooses to believe the review, the result is pretty devastating. On the other hand, if the review is phony, Mr. Ryan has serious legitimate grievances, though I can hardly see how Hooboy should be blamed, since Ryan had indicated he would no longer respond to negative reviews.

 

Reviews #10 and #11 are both negative reviews, submitted this year, from reviewers who have submitted multiple reviews.

 

Review #9, the first review submitted in 2004, is a positive review from a first time reviewer.

 

The remaining 8 reviews, all positive, were submitted in 2003 or earlier, with six coming from first time reviewers and 2 from multiple reviewers.

 

Looking at the total pattern, my take is that Mr. Ryan's performance as an escort seems to be heading downhill. Looking only at reviews from 2004, if you throw out the worst review (#12) and the best (#9), both from first time reviewers, what you're left with is two negative reviews from multiple escort reviewers.

 

I'd hardly call that a ringing endorsement.

[Traveller]

>He could have saved his DNA from the condom as proof

>of Jack having been there, depends on who the top was. Plus

>check the bed for body hairs, more DNA samples }(

>

>

>When in doubt I whip it out :+

 

Now I used to party with Marg Helgenberger in college, but damn dude, you've been watching too many episodes of her show.

 

As I stated earlier, Jack was big fun, and very mellow and extremely nice and accomodating (he drove to meet friends afterwards - a very long sesh, an hour charge). I can't believe he changed that much. I guess I'll just have to hire him again to get to the bottom of this. He's got a great cock.

 

Later.

 

PS. Meet your Maker before you meet the Fockers.

[LAShowbiz]

I'm not sure how many times I've posted on this Message Board, but that seems to be a determining factor in one's credibility in Posts and Reviews. Well, Tomcal-Ho is very well-respected on these Boards... he can attest for my character and credibility since he did endure my scandalous escapades for two weeks in Rio! LOL.

 

OK, I read the review and subsequent response by Jack Ryan. In fact, when I read the review, I left a message for Jack on his cell alerting him to such a crazy, bizarre story.

 

I've known "Jack Ryan" for quite some time now thru mutual friends socially (not thru this line of business). I was dumbfounded when I read this review thinking this was totally hysterical... hysterical in the sense that it couldn't possibly be true... and that it sounded like some bitter ex-friend/acquaintance trying to ruin his reputation.

 

I know Jack's background... he definitely does NOT need to steal for money. That's just ludicrous if you know anything about him. To me, he's somewhat of a work rebel, meaning he doesn't want to do a 9 to 5, but does porn/escorting 'cause it's less constricting. If he needed money, he could make one simple phone call. To steal a $7000 watch is so out-of-character that I just laughed at that allegation. Why would the reviewer even mention that 7,000 figure? Talk about over-dramatization... and to say he wasn't sure what he planned to do about the supposed theft?!?! I mean, get real...

 

I was mugged once by two thugs at gunpoint and they took way more than that amount. I KNEW I would never recover anything (including insurance-wise), but I STILL made a police report.

 

I think Hooboy made a bad judgment call in printing this review. I know Jack had previously written that he "would no longer respond to any reviews", but when a review includes an accusation as great as this, I would hope Hooboy AT LEAST emailed Jack for a response (despite his earlier remarks). If it was just a negative review, Hooboy was justified... but this review blatantly accused Jack of a felony. I would hope Hooboy would have excercised better judgment irregardless of Jack's previous disclosure. This site represents truth in judgment... well? This isn't just the normal negative review... it's pretty much libelous.

 

The damage has been done unfortunately. I'm sure many Hoovilians are gossiping about it right now. That's pretty sad 'cause I know the real "Jack Ryan". He would never do such a thing... period!

 

As far as the reviewer "HollyHillsMarc", I wouldn't be suprised if I knew who it was. His second posting on the subject made absolutely no sense (re-read it... it makes you think if he actually had the encounter). Almost like he was just smirking with the responses...

 

I hope Jack comes out of this hardly tarnished. He didn't deserve this. Simply ludicrous. He's human. He may not have been 100% perfect on every escort date, but I can't imagine him not trying. He's professional and courteous. I'm not saying he hasn't had an "off" date, but I seriously doubt he would ever have a date such as the one in question.

 

A thief? NO. A down-to-earth, intelligent, well-manned HUMAN BEING providing a service that everyone reading this would be inclined to act upon... YES. And he's darn good at it from what I've heard...

 

So, there you go... my two cents. You can attack me for what it's worth 'cause I do know him personally and am biased, but isn't it better to hear from someone that actually KNOWS Jack???

 

Good luck, Jack... sorry you have to endure this.

[woodlawn]

>OK, I read the review and subsequent response by Jack Ryan.

>In fact, when I read the review, I left a message for Jack on

>his cell alerting him to such a crazy, bizarre story.

 

I don't know why anyone would call the story "crazy, bizarre." Is the idea that an escort would steal from a client inherently crazy? I've seen many posts from clients here explaining that they take precautions to safeguard their possessions from theft when they see an escort.

 

> Why

>would the reviewer even mention that 7,000 figure? Talk about

>over-dramatization...

 

I assumed he mentioned it because he wanted readers to know he wasn't making a big deal out of losing a cheap watch that could be replaced in five minutes at any mall.

 

>and to say he wasn't sure what he

>planned to do about the supposed theft?!?! I mean, get

>real...

 

You must live in a different world from the one I know. In my world, a john who was ripped off by a prostitute would think very, very carefully before going to the cops about it. Especially if he had a family.

[Guest Florida Guy]

After reading all of Jack's reviews and all the comments in the MC, I come to the conclusion that Jack may not be the best choice for an escort. He has even alluded to the fact that he hasn't made all of his clients happy. BUT, there is a distinct difference in submitting a bad review of Jack as an escort and acusing him of grand theft. I was happy to read Jack's outrage at the review. It truly sounded like someone furious at being wrongfully (maliciously) acused. In this instance, and please note that I have the highest regard for Hoo, I think some editing of the review should have been done. Hoo should have either edited out the parts referring to the watch until he was able to confirm or deny its validity or not posted the review. I think if Jack was in fact wrongly acused, he probably does have a libel case. If the acusation is true, the "client" does have a grand theft case. Hoo shouldn't have gotten himself in the middle of this one.

 

Secondly, I don't see why either the client or Jack would have to tell the police that they were engaging in sex for money to be able to submit a complaint. All the client need do is to say that Jack was at his domicile and when he left, the watch was missing. There is absolutely no need to say why Jack was there. So, using the "sex for hire" excuse as to why he is not swearing out a complaint is a total red herring. In this case, I believe Jack, although I probably wouldn't hire him as an escort (even though he is gorgeous) given his other reviews.

[Guest alanm]

>On September 11, 2004 Jack wrote to me:

>

>I will no longer respond to any reviews, even from men that

>cannot be satisfied and wish to paint me in a negative light,

>due to their own issues and insecurities. My satisfaction rate

>is still very high to the majority of my clients. I know I

>cannot please everyone, but I aim to, always.

>JACK

 

Who really knows the truth in the review and response, except the reviewer and Jack? Given the downward trend of Jack's recent reviews, I tend to believe the reviewer. After reading Jack's e-mail to HooBoy in September, the one person whom we know is NOT at fault is HooBoy. It's an arrogant, thoughtless e-mail that essentially says: screw you Hooboy and your site. Jack is now paying a very high price for that arrogance. That are far too many escorts around with good reputations to even think about hiring Jack. Forget the watch, I would not hire him based on the fuck you e-mail to HooBoy.

[+ glutes]

I'd go with Brother Bucky and the last review...

[guyinsf]

Not to take sides, but:

 

>I've known "Jack Ryan" for quite some time now thru mutual

>friends socially (not thru this line of business).

 

If you don't know him through this line of business, you really have no basis to know how he will perform with clients. Your assertions later that...

 

>"He may not have been 100% perfect on every escort date, but I can't >imagine him not trying. He's professional and courteous. I'm not

>saying he hasn't had an "off" date, but I seriously doubt he

>would ever have a date such as the one in question."

 

...don't hold much water if you've never hired him. Maybe he's a great social acquaintance and friend but doesn't treat his clients the same. My point isn't that I am saying this to be true; I'm just saying that your speculation of his job performance is just that -- speculation. He certainly has received mixed reviews here, including an overall positive review early on that acknowledged that Jack seemed "detached." Perhaps the later negative review that described him as just "going through the motions" was an indication that, at least with some clients, Jack has difficulty engaging.

 

You continued:

 

>I know Jack's background... he definitely does NOT need to

>steal for money. That's just ludicrous if you know anything

>about him. To me, he's somewhat of a work rebel, meaning he

>doesn't want to do a 9 to 5, but does porn/escorting 'cause

>it's less constricting. If he needed money, he could make one

>simple phone call.

 

You do know that not everyone who steals does so because they "need" the money, right? Some people get thrilled by the act of shoplifting even when they don't need the item they are stealing or could easily afford to pay for it. And sometimes people steal not because they are in financial need but because of their moral values (or lack thereof). What about corporate criminals, stock fraud, etc? Surely white collar crime is not generally committed by people who have no other way to get money; they just CHOOSE to be dishonest. Again, I don't know "Jack Ryan" and I'm not saying that he is a thief, but your argument that he couldn't possibly steal from anyone because he has ready access to all the money he wants doesn't hold water.

 

 

 

So maybe the latest review is pure BS and Jack is a great escort, but I think he'd better represent himself by remaining reasonable (instead of getting a quick attitude and stating that he won't respond to negative reviews, suggesting that the only reason any client could possibly have anything bad to say about their experience together is a defect in the client's character) and suggesting that some of his many satisfied clients submit their own reviews of him. I honestly am not inclined to believe the latest review about the watch theft, but his track record before that (which seems totally believable to me) doesn't exactly add up to five stars.

[+ glutes]

Well lo & behold, 'JackRyan' is the latest member of the MC!

 

 

Welcome to our newest member JackRyan

[HooBoy]

1. That review was posted during the period of time I was not posting because I was totally disabled. My assistant, Foxy put it up during a high stress period.

 

2. I read what was written by the review and the because the escort always has the final say. Jack's response was posted within seconds of my receiving it, despite his claims that he would never respond, so I got no cooperation from him, only an attack on my credibility.

 

3. I do not know Jack, we have exchanged pleasant email in the past.

 

4. The review was published with ab scene of malice from this publisher. Frankly, I tend to believe Jack's version of the events, yet his malice was not and still is not absent in his subsequent emails to and about me.

 

5. The timing was unfortunate because of my disablement yet when the ball was in his court, he went into the stands to beat up on his fan.

 

6. Escorts responses are always most interesting to me because we get a peek into their soul. Don't shoot the messenger.

[Traveller]

>Not to take sides, but:

>

>>I've known "Jack Ryan" for quite some time now thru mutual

>>friends socially (not thru this line of business).

>

>If you don't know him through this line of business, you

>really have no basis to know how he will perform with clients.

> Your assertions later that...

>

 

 

Exactly. Because if you don't place clients in a different box from friends, which is in a different box from family, how can you possibly judge someone. Stay in your assigned roles and places, people. Life is complicated as it is, gosh darn it.

 

Later.

 

PS. Sparkys. For all you remainder clipped. There's enough hatred in this thread already.

[woodlawn]

> Hoo should have either edited out the parts referring to the

>watch until he was able to confirm or deny its validity or not

>posted the review.

 

I have to laugh when I read remarks like the above. How exactly is Hooboy supposed to "confirm or deny" the validity of this story? Do you want him to go to the reviewer's place and dust it for fingerprints? If Hooboy is required to choose between investigating the truth of every statement made in a review and refusing to publish the review, he may as well close this site now.

 

> I think if Jack was in fact wrongly

>acused, he probably does have a libel case.

 

If Jack is thinking of suing for defamation he should consider what happened to Oscar Wilde when he tried it.

 

> If the acusation

>is true, the "client" does have a grand theft case. Hoo

>shouldn't have gotten himself in the middle of this one.

 

In essence, you're saying that a client can never post a review stating that he was robbed by an escort because there will never be any way for Hooboy to confirm or deny the validity of such an accusation. So clients who have such an experience will never be able to warn the rest of us. Great idea.

 

 

>Secondly, I don't see why either the client or Jack would have

>to tell the police that they were engaging in sex for money to

>be able to submit a complaint. All the client need do is to

>say that Jack was at his domicile and when he left, the watch

>was missing. There is absolutely no need to say why Jack was

>there.

 

What happens if the investigating officer asks why Jack was visiting the reviewer? Is the reviewer supposed to refuse to answer the question, or is he supposed to lie to the officer?

[HooBoy]

Too much hatred in the world. After the secret handshake, kill a puppy. They are tender and tasty when roastd on a spit....another use for spit.:+

[+ Charlie]

The issue here is not whom one believes, but how the case was handled. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know you will), but I don't remember any situation quite like this in the past. "Negative review" normally means something like, he couldn't get hard, he came after fifteen minutes and left, he wasn't clean, he misrepresented his looks, etc. It doesn't normally include accusation of a felony, unconnected to the experience of hiring for sex/companionship. I don't fault Hooboy in this situation, because I think we are in somewhat ambiguous territory. Perhaps we need a stricter definition of what sorts of things can be included in an escort review (I know that certain personal info is already excluded) and what sorts of accusations might need to be treated differently (e.g., the escort tried to sell me drugs, the escort told me about crimes he had committed, etc.), though at this point I don't have any clear ideas about how to do that. Even after all these years, this site still needs to be a work in progress because it is unique.

[+ Lucky]

RE: The Libelous Jack Ryan Review

 

I don't think you post such a serious allegation from a first time reviewer, one which would be very difficult to prove. The motivation here seems to be that Hoo was mad at the escort's previous email to him and sought to teach him who's hoo.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: The Libelous Jack Ryan Review

 

>... and sought to teach him who's hoo.

 

Of hoom are u speaking? :7

[Traveller]

Egg nog

[Traveller]

Fruit cake

[Traveller]

Mince met pie

.

[Traveller]

Mistletoe